So, I was thinking... the original size restriction on sigs was put in because some people were viewing the site on 800x600 screens. Understandable at the time.

...But nobody uses anything that small anymore.
So, what if we change the sig size limits around a bit now?

How about instead of 175x600, it was 105x1000? A shorter, but wider space.
So, people get about the exact same amount of sig space (105k pixels), while making for less scrolling for everyone.

The file size limits, of course, could be left unchanged.

deanhills

Sounds like a great idea Ocalhoun. Would be interesting to see what size screens people are using as well. Maybe someone could start a poll on this?

william

Sounds like a good idea. Though, don't you think 105 pixels high is a bit short? At least from what I can see, most posts are short enough in length to not need much more vertical space than the username/avatar/location/coins/etc. And even if you do have a post that exceeds this, the extra 70 pixels of scrolling aren't that much more, especially when compared to the length of the post.

Then again, I am using a fairly high resolution monitor. It would definitely be interesting to see what resolutions most people use. Then we can find the perfect balance. I personally don't know anyone using 1024x768 anymore, except on iPads. Those I know with newish computers seem to mostly use 1366x768 on laptops and 1920x1080 on desktops.

Marcuzzo

On this computer I have a res of 1280x1024 and a 176x600 takes up 60% of my screen.
allowing larger images is not only taking up more space, but also using up more bandwidth.
there are also users that are still using a smaller screen or even an tablet.

truespeed

How about changing the kb limit for avatars too,as only logged in users can see them it won't affect the loading speed of the forum for guest traffic.

Most users are now on faster broadband pcs compared to 2005 so logged in users shouldn't have a problem with heavier graphics loading on the pages.

I use a 1024x768 screen,I could change it but I just like it that way.

deanhills

truespeed wrote:

How about changing the kb limit for avatars too,as only logged in users can see them it won't affect the loading speed of the forum for guest traffic.

I really like this idea too, particularly when it is a .png graphic. 120 X 120 instead of 100 X 100 would be great and maybe 50 kb instead of 24.

Vanilla

My screen resolution is 1024x600 so I think the change won't matter to me.

deanhills wrote:

I really like this idea too, particularly when it is a .png graphic. 120 X 120 instead of 100 X 100 would be great and maybe 50 kb instead of 24.

Bigger avatars are a lovely idea. I'm all for that. My PNG graphics don't tend to be more than the actual limit, but I would love having more space for my NiGHTS.

RosenCruz

I support this idea

Peterssidan

I don't like when the signatures take up more space than the actual content. I think the signature size is more than enough.

A higher file size limit would also lead to more irritating animated signatures and there is no way to hide signatures.

There is also a problem when clicking a link to a certain post the post will scroll down when signature images above loads. This is already a problem but it will get worse with bigger signatures.

Ghost Rider103

I say no way. If anything we should reduce the size due to the increase in people viewing the website on a cellphone now.

I already have to scroll way to the right to read posts due to the sig stretching the page on my iPhone. A wider signature would make it worse.

I see no reason for a such a massive signature to be honest.

Sabbadon

In my opinion signatures are almost useless and pretty annoying
the smaller, the better.. 0 is perfection

ocalhoun

Auugh! Why do so many people have to fail to understand what I'm talking about here?

Marcuzzo wrote:

allowing larger images is not only taking up more space, but also using up more bandwidth.

1: Not allowing larger images: allowing differently shaped images.
2: No increase in bandwidth, since the file size limit stays the same

Peterssidan wrote:

I don't like when the signatures take up more space than the actual content. I think the signature size is more than enough.

In my suggestion, the actual space taken up by the signature would not change size. It would only change shape.

Quote:

A higher file size limit would also lead to more irritating animated signatures and there is no way to hide signatures.

I'm not recommending any change in the file size limit.

Quote:

There is also a problem when clicking a link to a certain post the post will scroll down when signature images above loads. This is already a problem but it will get worse with bigger signatures.

This suggestion would lessen the effects of that by reducing the amount of vertical space sigs can take.

Ghost Rider103 wrote:

I say no way. If anything we should reduce the size due to the increase in people viewing the website on a cellphone now.

I already have to scroll way to the right to read posts due to the sig stretching the page on my iPhone. A wider signature would make it worse.

Must we really restrict the entire internet for the minority of people using it on tiny phones?

Peterssidan

In that case I think it is more reasonable. Maybe we could have a more flexible rule that says that width times height must not be larger than 105000, AND have limits on the width and height, or is that too complicated?

deanhills

ocalhoun wrote:

Must we really restrict the entire internet for the minority of people using it on tiny phones?

AWESOME point Ocalhoun. Wish we could discourage people from doing forums on phones as I'm dead certain that is one of the main reasons for the overall deterioration in the quality of posts as well. People tend to use the same abbreviated "speak", and shortcuts like not using capitalization and punctuation or spell checking.

twotrophy

deanhills wrote:

AWESOME point Ocalhoun. Wish we could discourage people from doing forums on phones as I'm dead certain that is one of the main reasons for the overall deterioration in the quality of posts as well. People tend to use the same abbreviated "speak", and shortcuts like not using capitalization and punctuation or spell checking.

I post on my phone most of the time. That is mainly because you can only type slower on phones as well as that it is harderand less comfortable. Maybe having things such as a mobile site or an app for Frihost would solve part of the problem. But having a Frihost app could potentially attract spammers or people who just come to ruin Frihost. Btw, I am posting this on mobile. What do you think Deanhills?

deanhills

twotrophy wrote:

deanhills wrote:

AWESOME point Ocalhoun. Wish we could discourage people from doing forums on phones as I'm dead certain that is one of the main reasons for the overall deterioration in the quality of posts as well. People tend to use the same abbreviated "speak", and shortcuts like not using capitalization and punctuation or spell checking.

I post on my phone most of the time. That is mainly because you can only type slower on phones as well as that it is harderand less comfortable. Maybe having things such as a mobile site or an app for Frihost would solve part of the problem. But having a Frihost app could potentially attract spammers or people who just come to ruin Frihost. Btw, I am posting this on mobile. What do you think Deanhills?

Apart from the "app" abbreviation and "harder and" one word, it's definitely above average. I'd be OK with this standard of quality.

Vanilla

So a mobile version of Frihost would please everyone, wouldn't it?

I use a mobile device to check on Frihost from time to time. It's the browser of my Nintendo DS. I'm not always near my computer so I use my DS to take a look and sometimes I use it to reply topics. The reason I don't use it more it's because the forum doesn't look so good on a mobile browser. I don't have issues when I need to make a long post with it, but the forum looks really clogged.

A mobile version would be wonderful, and not to please only the members. I'm thinking about those people who come from Google, the ones that click on the ads. I don't know the percentage of non-members using mobile devices, but I think a mobile version would make everyone happy.

Ghost Rider103

Quote:

Must we really restrict the entire internet for the minority of people using it on tiny phones?

Do you really think it is the minority now? I'm sure nearly everyone starts out by visiting through a PC, but I'd say most people are visiting Frihost through both PC and a cell now. Even Bondings has visited through his Droid.

I don't think my response was intended to "restrict the entire internet for the people using phones." I use both about evenly to visit and post on Frihost. I don't particularly agree with making the people who do use cell phones more annoyed by all kinds of scrolling issues this would cause. That isn't really fair. The most fair thing to do would to leave it be. Or adjust the signature sizes and create a mobile version of Frihost which wouldn't display signatures - though this is probably our of reach at the moment.

If cell phones didn't exist, I would still be against the idea to allow use of wide signatures. I think the current signature limit is massive. A lot of forums don't even allow the use of signatures.

catscratches

Indeed. I would say the amount of people surfing on mobiles is only increasing.

I would be okay with changing the width/height ratio, however, I think 1000 in width is too much. 1024x768 resolutions still aren't all that uncommon (for lower-end "surfing" laptops). As such, I think you should be able to visit with 1024x768 without getting any horizontal scrollbars. This means both columns need to be at most 1024 together. With 1000px for the right column (posts and sigs) that only leaves 24 px for the left one. Measured on my screen, the left column + padding is ~200px, meaning max 800px width.